nobody is putting a gun to your head to license software. This is a choice you make. If a company does something or demands something that is unacceptable for you, don't freakin use it.

The GPL is free code that requires you to change how you license your code if you use it. I don't think anyone here thinks thats wrong, even though that power goes WAY beyond the power a person would have if they sold you something. When Linksys (for example) broke the terms of the license, nobody said that the GPL should be overturned, they wanted the freakin code, because if Linksys didn't want to abide by the terms of the GPL, they shouldn't have used it.

What is the difference between stallman demanding you change the license of something he has nothing to do with, and autodesk demanding you destroy something you legally bought? one is a loveable hippy, the other is a heartless multinational.

I'm not saying that autodesk is good or right or anything like that. I am saying that people need to stop deluding themselves about these things. Buying software, movies, books, etc are not the same thing as buying a loaf of bread, your rights are very very different. If the company is demanding too much, write them an email explaining why you didn't buy their product. If enough people do that, things will change.

So basically, youre saying that putting up a bajillion pages of legalese with an ok button isn't enough to indicate that this is different then buying a sandwich.

How about more "intangible" software? Like paying for rememberthemilk.com or something like that. There is no physical anything changing hands, but you are still going to get that gigantic license agreement you have to agree with.

I don't necessarily disagree with you, just sort of curious where you draw the line.

Hmmm...I'm pretty sure you have previously stated that you had been told by a law professor in NL that EULA's are legal there too. It would seems that at least one part of Europe is as fucked as the U.S.
Of course, EULA's can't over-ride your local consumer laws anyway so it's not a disaster.

The GPL is free code that requires you to change how you license your code if you use it. I don't think anyone here thinks thats wrong, even though that power goes WAY beyond the power a person would have if they sold you something. When Linksys (for example) broke the terms of the license, nobody said that the GPL should be overturned, they wanted the freakin code, because if Linksys didn't want to abide by the terms of the GPL, they shouldn't have used it.

GPL is about copyright. As someone pointed out, copyright is not the same as ownership. For example, if you have bought a book, can you claim that whatever said in the book is now yours? No! But, can you resell the book? Yes!

I was using books and cds as an example of a purchase with additional restrictions. If I buy bread, I can photocopy it. If I buy a book, I can't photocopy it. You have different rights depending on what you buy.

The GPL is free code that requires you to change how you license your code if you use it. I don't think anyone here thinks thats wrong, even though that power goes WAY beyond the power a person would have if they sold you something. When Linksys (for example) broke the terms of the license, nobody said that the GPL should be overturned, they wanted the freakin code, because if Linksys didn't want to abide by the terms of the GPL, they shouldn't have used it.

Nitpick: the GPL says absolutely nothing about your code. The GPL addresses only what permissions you are granted for GPL code (written by someone else). That is to say, what you are permitted to do with THEIR code. Not your code.

Your code (that is to say, code that you wrote) you may do whatever you like with.

Anyone else's code ... you require permission from the authors to do anything at all with it. This is copyright law.

In the Linksys case ... it wasn't Linksys's code, it was GPL code written by someone else. It would have been exactly the same outcome if Linksys had used stolen Windows source code from Microsoft and used that.

Well, let's say you write a 10000 line program, but in that program you use 100 lines of GPL code somebody else wrote. Then you relase the binary. According to the GPL, you now have to release your entire code base under GPL, even if your plan was to keep it closed source.

I'm not saying that autodesk is good or right or anything like that. I am saying that people need to stop deluding themselves about these things. Buying software, movies, books, etc are not the same thing as buying a loaf of bread, your rights are very very different. If the company is demanding too much, write them an email explaining why you didn't buy their product. If enough people do that, things will change.

So basically what that means then is nothing will change.
not enough people will write as u say. And the masses are generally ignorant that when they purchase something that comes with software or purchase the software itself they are not purchasing but are licensing which means they do not own what they think they have just purchased. They have no clue. So we might as well just pack it in. They win we lose.